verify

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: connects to live server, sends requests from a recorded cassette, compares responses, and reports changes. It lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature) or prerequisites, but covers core actions well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, clearly stating purpose, method, and output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains the output ('reports exactly what changed'). However, it doesn't specify the format or structure of the report, which could be critical for programmatic use. Otherwise, context is sufficient for a verification tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new information beyond the schema parameter descriptions (e.g., 'path to cassette', 'command', 'args'). It does not enhance semantic understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying a server after an update by comparing responses against a recorded cassette. It specifies the verb ('confirm nothing broke') and resource ('server'), and effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'record' and 'replay'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit context for when to use ('after updating a server'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'replay' vs 'verify'), leaving some ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.